ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥

Touton, the commissioner of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, has responsibility for protecting the threatened Colorado River water system, the source of much of ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥â€™s water. She told a Senate committee:

“Between 2 and 4 million acre-feet of additional conservation is needed just to protect critical levels in 2023. It is in our authorities to act unilaterally to protect the system, and we will protect the system.�

That was June 14, and she gave the basin states including ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ 60 days to figure out how to cut at least 2 million acre-feet of consumption. The “or elseâ€� was clear: Her bureau would unilaterally impose cuts to their supply of water if the states didn’t devise their own plan.

Then came Tuesday, 60 days later, and the states had failed to agree to a plan. But instead of announcing unilateral cuts, Touton’s language turned mushy and opaque.

“The Bureau of Reclamation will develop a detailed work plan that will identify the steps we will take in order to ensure we have the tools necessary to protect the system, if and when we need them,� she said.

Talk about hedging.

She went on, “We are moving forward with several efforts at the same time. As we evaluate our additional short-term operational administrative actions, we are simultaneously developing the additional tools and innovative strategies that will be necessary to help communities address the hydrologic variability in this basin caused by climate change.�

The change of tone left many of the participants and viewers of the news conference confused. Reporters pressed for more clarity, but got nothing much from Touton or other Interior Department officials on the call.

John Fleck, an author of books on water in the West and professor at the University of New Mexico, told me he listened to the news conference, which was streamed live online.

“I don’t know what they said,� he said, “and I was at the news conference.�

Sarah Porter, director of the Kyl Center for Water Policy at ASU’s Morrison Institute, came away similarly befuddled.

“A lot of people are scratching their heads about this,� Porter said. “In June, when Commissioner Touton testified they would need to find 2 to 4 million acre-feet to cut from the system, that was like an earthquake.

“Everybody got going, there wasn’t an agreement, and I think everybody was waiting for the hammer to fall — and then it didn’t.�

I’m no expert on water policy, but my experience from other realms tells me to get suspicious when people’s speech turns opaque. It can conceal something or, just as bad, it can conceal nothing — that is, hide the fact that nothing substantial is going on.

You could hear the frustration with this when ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ officials held their own news conference later on Tuesday.

“We were looking for an outcome (that) would be enforceable, mandatory,â€� the director of ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥â€™s Department of Water Resources, Tom Buschatzke, said Tuesday afternoon. “A voluntary agreement — that doesn’t work for us.â€�

Buschatzke and Ted Cooke, general manager of the Central ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ Project, repeatedly used the word “certaintyâ€� to describe what they’re looking for. They haven’t got it yet.

ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ and Nevada made a proposal to the other lower basin negotiators — from California and the Bureau of Reclamation — about how much Colorado River water they would stop taking to meet the 2 million acre-foot demand, but California and the bureau didn’t accept their proposal for mandatory measures.

“It wasn’t long into the process, maybe three or four weeks into the process, that for whatever reason, folks started looking more at a voluntary program than a mandatory program,� Buschatzke said.

There are possible valid reasons that the Bureau of Reclamation pulled back on its threat to make unilateral cuts, Fleck told me.

His interpretation: “They realized that what the commissioner asked the states to do could not be done in 60 days, but also that what they had threatened to do could not realistically be done in 60 days.�

So, it appears the bureau paradoxically set itself up for failure with its clear but accelerated demands.

But the feds shouldn’t give away their leverage by making cuts voluntary or forgiving deadlines anymore. We in the states reliant on the Colorado River need them to force us to get this right, to get certainty.

Otherwise, the problem will be even harder to solve every year, as we need to take even greater cuts of a smaller flow of water.